1) Seeming inconsistencies by the review staff in credits adjudicating admissions that fall into the gray areas of acceptability. Now, when something clearly breaches the rules (ie, shoutouts that contain links to non-IMVU sites, shoutouts that contain profane language, etc) it's an easy call to make, and our reviewers have done an excellent job recently in identifying and rejecting these submissions. However, the trouble comes with the stuff that falls into the more ambiguous gray area of message content -- meaning, a submission containing a phrase or reference that may or may not be deemed unacceptable depending on how it is interpreted by the individual reviewer. If you've ever seen referees or line judges arguing over the outcome of a close play in a sports event, you can certainly understand how different reviewers in IMVU, using the exact same rules and standards, can often times come to different conclusions about the merits of a submission. Ultimately, when it comes to this kind of judgment, it's not an exact science and each reviewer has to make the call. When questions arise, we do discuss these issues and share our credits opinions, and in this way try to better understand the nuances that go into our decision-making. Hopefully, using this approach, we will continue to achieve a more uniform understanding of what should or shouldn't commonly make the cut, but this also takes time, and it doesn't change the bottom line: "it's NOT an exact science" and on a case by case basis, it's up to the individual reviewer to make the call. As a person submitting a shoutout for review, one of the best things you can do to ensure that your message or submission will be consistently accepted is to follow the guidelines for message content (see above), and don't stray into the fuzzy ambiguous gray zones.